Is 'in science you must argue with math and not with words' a fallacy or not?

Some people on the forum here say that you cannot argue with words when you have some scientific claim, you must argue with equations and math.



Is this a fallacy or not? I think it is: I even think that when you cannot argue with (well-defined) words, or you cannot define your equations in well-defined terms, then your math is gibberish nonsense.



Even 'equation' or 'mathematics' are words. ;)



Without words, no math:

http://ift.tt/1zUq5Rj



You can perfectly use words to explain an equation, but you can't use an equation without being able to explain it in words.





But these words are well-defined operational terms.

When you have an equation in physics, you probably know that the symbols are well-defined in words. In measurable terms,.



See:

http://ift.tt/1zUq3Ja





biologists, geologists, archeologists, historians, you name it: they sometimes use math, but they use above all: words to describe their discipline. Math without well-defined words is meaningless. Well-defined terms and their logic relationship in words without math, is perfectly comprehensible.



So, 'you may not use words, but must use equations to make your point in science' is obviously a big fallacy.